Thessalonian said:
I will apologize for the "silliness" comments. I will also apologize for the "bravo good man" But D46 has had the Catholic perspective explained on these issues from both scripture and Catholic theology and understanding and continues to post things that are simply contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches and so they are straw men and red herrings and I see no need to retract a blatant fact.
Blessings
No apologies necessary for those "terms of endearment". I've been cut with much sharper knives than was wielded here. Besides, I've probably called you a "cracker idolator" or "bead counter" somewhere down the line...perhaps worse. At any rate-not big deal to me. Unfortunately, anything I post refuting this harlot system of worship will be contradictory to what the Catholic Church teaches because it's contrary to the word of God on all counts. I think you could come up with a better phrase than the
straw man and
red herring thing you've been using over and over. It's reallly getting quite old and worn out.
As for Peter's mother-in-law living with him and the wife not mentioned, that's neither hear nor there. The bottom line is (at least in times past) Catholic priests were to be celibate-part of the doctrine. Of course, many were married going back centuries ago and rightly so, from my perspective. God never intended such a burden as celibacy, knowing the problems it would generate and has to this day as the headlines clearly show.
I find it rather odd that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul in his final salutation at the end of the last chapter, never mentions Peter at all...it appears nearly everyone else is mentioned but Peter. Simon Magus was in Rome but, not Simon Peter...highly doubtful. Nevertheless, my bottom line is that even if Peter paid a visit to Rome, he was not there to start a pagan church and for sure he wasn't a pope...Leo I may have been the first bonified "Pontifax Maximus" or perhaps Gregory, but not Peter. Peter spoke too much about Christ to be a pope.
As for Paul, he preached, In the Jewish synagogues,Acts 9:20. Saul was now convinced that Jesus, whom they had crucified, and who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus, was the Son of God, or Messiah; and therefore as such he proclaimed him. He was afterwards indeed the apostle of the Gentiles, but according to Christ's command, he first preached the word of life to the Jews, to convert some, and to leave others without excuse: After which he turned from them unto the Gentiles according to "It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you; but because you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles". Acts 13:46.
The doctrine he preached; That Jesus was the Son of God, the true, promised, and expected Messiah; and that all the prophecies and predictions of the prophets concerning the Messiah, were exactly fulfilled in his person.
Peter had a vision if you recall in Acts 10:10-16, and doubted it's vallidity until he was told of Cornelius summonsing him to his house. In Acts 10:22... And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews,
was warned from God by an holy angel to send for
thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Cornelieus was warned that he should send for Peter and no one else. I don't question God's reasoning about who goes to who to preach the good news and don't believe anyone else should make great strides toward disallowing God's intentions. He does as he will. You're just trying to mix and mince for debates sake and I won't play that game.
: 
:
